Dismissed

Hari Singh Bhadwa and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Feb 2017CW/3836/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking declaration of employment and payment of dues, this court dismissed the petition. The petitioners failed to produce an appointment letter or any document establishing a master-servant relationship with the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition for failure to prove the existence of an employment relationship with the respondents.

Hari Singh Bhadwa and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3836 / 1999

¶3

Hari Singh Bhadwa S/o Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 27 Years, 75, Kalptaru, Bandhu Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur

¶4

Vinod Kumar Hans S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 23 Years, Plot No.11, Behind Geejgarh House, Vihar Colony, Road No.2, 22 Godown, Jaipur

¶5

Jitendra Sharma S/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, Plot No.2, Path No.6, Vijay Bari, Teen Dukan, Dher Ka Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary to the Government Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶9

The Director, Small Savings Department, Government of Rajasthan, Vitta Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner (s) : Mrs. Manju Garg, for Mr. Prahlad Singh For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶13

Order

¶14

23/02/2017

¶15

Instant petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein that the respondents be declared as employer of the petitioners and a further direction be given to the respondents to pay regular pay-scale to the petitioners of the posts of Computer Programmers/Data Entry Operators. It has been further prayed that the respondents be

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-3836/1999]

¶18

directed to pay all dues allowances to the petitioners.

¶19

Respondent No.2– Director, Small Savings Department, Government of Rajasthan, Vitta Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, in the written-statement, has submitted that the petitioners are not employees of the answering-respondents. In fact, an agreement was executed between the answering respondents and M/s. P.R.S. Computer Center, Jaipur. It is further stated that M/s. P.R.S. Computer Center had to provide one programmer on payment of Rs.3500/- plus 10% service charge and two Data Entry Operators on payment of Rs.2500/- each plus 10% service charge. It has been stated that the petitioners were never employed by the answering-respondents and they continue to be the employees of M/s. P.R.S. Computer Center, Jaipur.

¶20

Admittedly, M/s. P.R.S. Computer Center, Jaipur has not been impleaded as party to the present writ petition.

¶21

In the reply, it has been further averred that the post was not created on permanent basis as the answering respondents have already sufficient staff and since the staff was not well trained in the Computer, therefore, as a temporary arrangement for a time being to get the pending work completed, the services of the private company were hired for a limited period.

¶22

During the course of arguments, Ms. Manju Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, could not show any document that the petitioners were ever employed by the respondent No.2- Director, Small Savings Department, Government of Rajasthan, Vitta Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-3836/1999]

¶25

No appointment letter has been placed on record. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has failed to demonstrate the relationship of master and servant between the respondents and the petitioners.

¶26

Since counsel appearing for the petitioners could not show any document from which the relationship of the master and servant could be inferred, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶27

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) J.

¶28

ashok

Hari Singh Bhadwa and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh Bhadwa and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhlakh Ahmed and Ors. Vs Sajid and Ors.

Harkeshi Devi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Javed Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Gothi Devi and Ors. Vs Ram Lal and Ors.

Gopal @ Kailash @ Dagaliya Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Anju Sharma Vs R P S C Ajmer